nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

RyanthePirate

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy and this immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the county.

Agree/Disagree?

Mod:

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
DelaneyIn
TheCitizen
V8 Interceptor
Hamachi - lifted 14/03/22, reinstated 28/03/22
Effects
biko
Kivaro
Eric Cartman
Swindled
Gradius
RobbieTheRobber - lifted 25/08/21 - reinstated 27/08/21
Cordell - lifted 16/08/21
Gangster Yippin
blindjustice
Eircom_Sucks
TomSweeney
Wojtek the Bear
Cordell
klaz
0ph0rce0
tonium22
tonycascarino
Real Donald Trump
Star Bingo
Nuts102
TomTomTim
Nosler
Absolute Zero
Hungry Burger

Find more posts tagged with

racism

i-am-a-racist-but...

we're-not-racist

Quick Links

Comments

Kivaro

Stateofyou wrote: »

What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country ......

Stateofyou wrote: »

....... without such nasty overtones of privilege and racism

Ah, the auld white Irish privilege blame again. We should all hang our heads in shame for being born in our "safe"(?) white country.

I'll tell you the actual privilege that many Irish have; it's the privilege of getting up early in the morning and and go to work in order to pay for the substantial numbers of non-EU economic migrants arriving at Dublin airport to avail of the our generous social welfare and free-housing-for-life system.

I usually find that those who want to welcome with open arms those who want to migrate to Ireland from outside of the EU are either:

Involved in the very lucrative asylum/migrant industry.
Do not contribute to the exchequer in a meaningful manner in order to help pay for their utopian open border concept of accepting all who want to come.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Well it can be argued that it has to make them what they want, nay need them to be. Because as I've noted the arguments for multiculturalism are scant, so it's a shaky position to kick off with and measured defence options are limited so attack is the easier option. That and the appeal to emotion. It's a common part of the oppressed/oppressor politic no matter where it's found, no matter who is what in the narrative and marks those out as believers.

Do you even realise how entitled, privileged and unempathetic you sound? Congrats, you won the birth place lottery so you have no need of an appeal to anyone else's emotion and kind heartedness of others, more safer and opportunistic people and countries. So F everyone else who weren't so lucky. They can appeal to emotion somewhere else. You're not persuaded enough by their appeals of the benefits (aka real people) of multiculturalism. Lovely.

"Attack...":pac: Meanwhile some people actually live in scary places getting attacked for real. Internet "attacks" are so scary!! Oh no! :pac:

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Your head must be a lonely place, get out and enjoy some fresh air today. I dont engage with racists so any posters i feel are racist i dont engage with, racists dont thrive when they have little oxygen.

So look the other way while the sh!t goes on because you're not directly affected by it. The very definition of white privilege. Thanks for proving a point.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Add in that the same flag wavers for multicultural diversity would have a pearl clutching fit if it were suggested that what a majority Black nation really needs to be better is more White faces migrating in. Another interesting equality going on.

If you remember, 'white faces' historically thinking that what black 'savage' nations really need is more white people aka colonisers and plunderers so it doesn't need to be suggested, it has already happened for hundreds of years.

Racist and greedy domination of another culture has what to do with refugee or economic migrants, which only proves my point about the ugly comments on immigration discussions all over this thread.

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

Calm down. You seem to be disproportionately triggered.
Point me to where you took a stand against it.

Your head must be a lonely place, get out and enjoy some fresh air today. I dont engage with racists so any posters i feel are racist i dont engage with, racists dont thrive when they have little oxygen.

Wibbs

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Point me to where i said i like racist xenophobic behavior, again its all in your head this outrage you are creating. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your stance does not make them what you want them to be.

Well it can be argued that it has to make them what they want, nay need them to be. Because as I've noted the arguments for multiculturalism are scant, so it's a shaky position to kick off with and measured defence options are limited so attack is the easier option. That and the appeal to emotion. It's a common part of the oppressed/oppressor politic no matter where it's found, no matter who is what in the narrative and marks those out as believers.

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Point me to where i said i like racist xenophobic behavior, again its all in your head this outrage you are creating. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your stance does not make them what you want them to be.

Calm down. You seem to be disproportionately triggered.
Point me to where you took a stand against it.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Well you're all over the place there for a start. Lord knows where you got multiculturalism equating with anti-immigration. Never mind that I can't recall a single post that was against actual asylum seekers fleeing actual persecution.

You can't be serious. This whole thread is a shining example of racist, anti-immigration rants, open xenophobia, and lovely discussions about the benefits or drawbacks of certain types of people. Disgraceful is what this most of this thread is. Entitled and unempathetic privilege from people who simply won the luck of the birth place draw.

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

Yeah, racism and xenophobia and unempathetic privilege is nasty behaviour and I'm perfectly justified in calling it out. Tough if you don't like it.

Point me to where i said i like racist xenophobic behavior, again its all in your head this outrage you are creating. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your stance does not make them what you want them to be.

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

I am perfectly calm you are the one on here using words like nasty racist etc to describe anybody who doesn't agree with your view, i am open minded and agree on immigration for genuine refugees but you fail to be open minded when others discuss economic migrants. BTW some of the posts are racist but vast majority are not so dont presume i agree with the tones of all posts on here.

Yeah, racism and xenophobia and unempathetic privilege is nasty behaviour and I'm perfectly justified in calling it out. Tough if you don't like it.

Stateofyou

Deleted User wrote: »

Hope yeah, but so what. It doesn't mean we should get to move and be provided with a new life in any other country. How many billion people in the world are less well off than us. By your logic they would hope for a better life in a rich western country. So should they all get it.

We need to be very careful, look what's happening in America with the increasing resentment and racism against white people under the guise of 'white privilege'. Its only going to get worse. Why would we bring that upon ourselves.

We should be very choosey about who we let stay here and feel no shame for it. The future for our children and grandchildren is more important than being recklessly virtuous.

Well that part in bold certainly sums it up. What a glaring lack of empathy. You wouldn't want to hear "so what" if you were in their position.
Yeah, everyone deserves better. Everyone.
Your reference of America shows total ignorance of the issues there. The increasing resentment is due to a divisive president, his government and also economic conditions there of widespread struggle, lack of support, and poverty among its ordinary citizens. They also have a unique history of slavery of black people and the systemic oppression built for and upheld by white people who are often oblivious- hence "white privilege."

People immigrating from horrible conditions also want a future for their children and grandchildren.

Wibbs

2u2me wrote: »

You've answered with a lot of benefits; but wasn't the question what benefits are there for the host nation?

Mostly the feel good factor, with a higher chance(when compared to illegal/quasi legal economic migrants) of extra skillsets that you would have with legal migration.

Stateofyou wrote: »

What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country debating about "multiculturalism" aka anti-immigration while others simply had the bad luck to be born where they were. Many without peace and safety for themselves or their children, lack of food and housing, stability or opportunity. Some people are just trying to live and if the shoe were on the other foot and we faced the same challenges we would hope that others would accept us. 126 pages bickering about the worth of human lives. This thread is disgusting.

Well you're all over the place there for a start. Lord knows where you got multiculturalism equating with anti-immigration. Never mind that I can't recall a single post that was against actual asylum seekers fleeing actual persecution.

Nope, the main issues that people are asking questions about is a) is the politic of multiculturalism itself working or a workable one and b) are chancers gaming the system?

In the case of a) it's pretty easy to list out the negatives and negatives that are evident in every single multicultural nation in the modern world, not least for those migrant populations who don't quite fit with the local, whereas the positives listed so far seem to just amount to exotic food and cheap labour and feeling virtuous at some remove.

In the case of b) well, let's look at the demographics of diversity that came to Ireland during the boom on the back of a unique legal loophole. Since that loophole was closed - and by a large majority of the Irish voting base by the way - the same demographics are refused entry nearly 100% of the time. So how did the same people who came here during the boom who were apparently grand magically turn into chancers in the interim? Even Leo Varadkar publicly noted this regarding migrants from Georgia, and Romania and Ukraine. Which also brings up another issue. He left out migrants from sub Saharan Africa which make up a large percentage of those now refused, but he avoided mentioning them entirely. Well it's OK to point out White chancers, but pointing out not so White chancers is something that's become verboten. An interesting equality to be sure. Add in that the same flag wavers for multicultural diversity would have a pearl clutching fit if it were suggested that what a majority Black nation really needs to be better is more White faces migrating in. Another interesting equality going on.

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

You need to calm down. I referred to people in general on this thread, and obviously you have no problem with the tone of some posts here but I do and I'm entitled to my opinion. Tough. I've been quite clear on where I stand.

I am perfectly calm you are the one on here using words like nasty racist etc to describe anybody who doesn't agree with your view, i am open minded and agree on immigration for genuine refugees but you fail to be open minded when others discuss economic migrants. BTW some of the posts are racist but vast majority are not so dont presume i agree with the tones of all posts on here.

[Deleted User]

Stateofyou wrote: »

Are you saying that if you were from a different country and faced horrible challenges for you and your family that you wouldn't hope to be welcomed somewhere safer?

Hope yeah, but so what. It doesn't mean we should get to move and be provided with a new life in any other country. How many billion people in the world are less well off than us. By your logic they would hope for a better life in a rich western country. So should they all get it.

We need to be very careful, look what's happening in America with the increasing resentment and racism against white people under the guise of 'white privilege'. Its only going to get worse. Why would we bring that upon ourselves.

We should be very choosey about who we let stay here and feel no shame for it. The future for our children and grandchildren is more important than being recklessly virtuous.

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Explain to me where i devalued any human, you are making all this up in your head, see a counselor you couldn't be happy.

You need to calm down. I referred to people in general on this thread, and obviously you have no problem with the tone of some posts here but I do and I'm entitled to my opinion. Tough. I've been quite clear on where I stand.

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

1. We are not facing mass, open immigration here of the entire 3rd world joining us
2. I know it hasn't occurred to you, but it is actually possible to discuss immigration without such nasty overtones of privilege and racism and devaluing others while,
3. Looking to help solve some of the problems real people face, because,
4. It's what you would desperately want if the shoe were on the other foot
5. So you're a hypocrite

Explain to me where i devalued any human, you are making all this up in your head, see a counselor you couldn't be happy.

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

1. We are not facing mass, open immigration here of the entire 3rd world joining us
2. I know it hasn't occurred to you, but it is actually possible to discuss immigration without such nasty overtones of privilege and racism and devaluing others while,
3. Looking to help solve some of the problems real people face, because,
4. It's what you would desperately want if the shoe were on the other foot
5. So you're a hypocrite

Explain to me where i said anything racist? You seriously come across as having anger issues, the vast majority on here agree with refuges coming here for better lives, its economic migrants who come here people are against who expect houses on arrival after a stint in direct provision. Not too hard to understand but again you couldn't have outrage if you actually read what most people say on here who are reasoned. I asked would you agree with anybody who wanted to come here and you wouldn't answer so we know your policy on immigration.

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

haha you wouldn't answer mine because you know its not feasible to for a small country like Ireland to have mass immigration no matter where the people came from or their backstorys, the population unfortunately for you of the third world wont fit into our island. Obviously if i was a refugee i would hope to move to better country and be welcomed your argument is nonsensical.

1. We are not facing mass, open immigration here of the entire 3rd world joining us
2. I know it hasn't occurred to you, but it is actually possible to discuss immigration without such nasty overtones of privilege and racism and devaluing others while,
3. Looking to help solve some of the problems real people face, because,
4. It's what you would desperately want if the shoe were on the other foot
5. So you're a hypocrite

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

You won't answer it because you know perfectly well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would hope to be welcomed and have a chance for safety and opportunity for you and your family. I don't actually need you to answer it, it was rhetorical anyway. :pac:

haha you wouldn't answer mine because you know its not feasible to for a small country like Ireland to have mass immigration no matter where the people came from or their backstorys, the population unfortunately for you of the third world wont fit into our island. Obviously if i was a refugee i would hope to move to better country and be welcomed your argument is nonsensical.

Stateofyou

TomTomTim wrote: »

You sound like a Trócaire ad

And I've already said what many of you sound like.
I'd rather sound like a Trócaire ad than the rest of ye.

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

I will not answer you're question as according to you're logic you have put words in my mouth.

You won't answer it because you know perfectly well that if the shoe were on the other foot you would hope to be welcomed and have a chance for safety and opportunity for you and your family. I don't actually need you to answer it, it was rhetorical anyway. :pac:

PS: its *your, not you're

TomTomTim

Stateofyou wrote: »

What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country debating about "multiculturalism" aka anti-immigration while others simply had the bad luck to be born where they were. Many without peace and safety for themselves or their children, lack of food and housing, stability or opportunity. Some people are just trying to live and if the shoe were on the other foot and we faced the same challenges we would hope that others would accept us. 126 pages bickering about the worth of human lives. This thread is disgusting.

You sound like a Trócaire ad

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

I don't think your question is a valid one. You're the one who put words in my mouth by posing a question about it. There are challenges to immigration that can be met in different, more humane ways. Including bigger effort to help countries problems at their source. We need better systems of immigration, not inhumanness. What I see on this thread ranges from xenophobia to racism and ugly discussion about the worth and benefits of other human beings.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and you and your family were refugees (definition: a person/people who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster) or lacking in any basic opportunity doomed to a life of struggle and hardship and pain, what would you hope for?

I will not answer you're question as according to you're logic you have put words in my mouth.

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Could you answer the question i asked first?

I don't think your question is a valid one. You're the one who put words in my mouth by posing a question about it. There are challenges to immigration that can be met in different, more humane ways. Including bigger effort to help countries problems at their source. We need better systems of immigration, not inhumanness. What I see on this thread ranges from xenophobia to racism and ugly discussion about the worth and benefits of other human beings.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and you and your family were refugees (definition: a person/people who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster) or lacking in any basic opportunity doomed to a life of struggle and hardship and pain, what would you hope for?

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

Are you saying that if you were from a different country and faced horrible challenges for you and your family that you wouldn't hope to be welcomed somewhere safer?

Could you answer the question i asked first?

Stateofyou

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Are you saying that anybody who wants to come here because they were born in a less developed poorer country should be welcomed with open arms so?

Are you saying that if you were from a different country and faced horrible challenges for you and your family that you wouldn't hope to be welcomed somewhere safer?

iebamm2580

Stateofyou wrote: »

What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country debating about "multiculturalism" aka anti-immigration while others simply had the bad luck to be born where they were. Many without peace and safety for themselves or their children, lack of food and housing, stability or opportunity. Some people are just trying to live and if the shoe were on the other foot and we faced the same challenges we would hope that others would accept us. 126 pages bickering about the worth of human lives. This thread is disgusting.

Are you saying that anybody who wants to come here because they were born in a less developed poorer country should be welcomed with open arms so? No matter how many.

Stateofyou

What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country debating about "multiculturalism" aka anti-immigration while others simply had the bad luck to be born where they were. Many without peace and safety for themselves or their children, lack of food and housing, stability or opportunity. Some people are just trying to live and if the shoe were on the other foot and we faced the same challenges we would hope that others would accept us. 126 pages bickering about the worth of human lives. This thread is disgusting.

2u2me

Wibbs wrote: »

And again for the cheap seats:

You've answered with a lot of benefits; but wasn't the question what benefits are there for the host nation?

Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be welcomed by a host nation compared to illegal migrants. Benefit. [Benefit to asylum seekers?]

Actual asylum seekers are less likely to window shop for an upgrade in nations than illegal migrants(QV the Viet Boat people who chose to come here when the place was one of the poorest in Europe). Benefit. [This indeed is a benefit for Ireland, but through less asylum seekers, not more as was the original question]

Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be involved in criminality and even modern terrorism compared to illegal migrants. Benefit. [This is a fair point although I haven't seen the data, can anyone point me to it?]

Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be in need of social welfare safety nets over time compared to illegal migrants. Benefit. [Same as above]

Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be in the tax net and other civil frameworks than illegal migrants. Benefit.[Same again, more pertinent would be, is their arrival a net positive?]

You could ask me the benefits of accepting strangers into your house. I could then list off how much better it is than accepting criminals into your house. Doing so wouldn't be answering your question, though.

Wibbs

Slowyourrole wrote: »

You did dismiss them. The fact you explained why you were dismissing them doesn't change that. It's not that I don't like your answers, I just don't agree with you because I see value in different things than you.

And yet struggle to cogently explain these nebulous values?

I am surprised the closest either of you have come to describing a benefit to the host nation of accepting asylum seekers is looking virtuous.

Me. Being accurate. wrote: »

Have you lost the ability to read plain english?

Seems like I was correct.

And again for the cheap seats:
Actual asylum seekers are tiny in number. Illegal and quasi legal economic migrants are higher in number by quite the degree. Scale makes a big difference. It's a lot easier to accommodate and assimilate (on both sides) 2000 people compared to 20, or 40000. Benefit.
People who are genuinely in danger are helped. Benefit.
The host nation gets a feel good factor. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be people who would have stayed in their homeland if it hadn't gone to hell and more likely to be more qualified. Benefit.

Just in case sums aren't a strong point either, that's four benefits compared to illegal and legal loophole migrants we dealt with before the law was changed. I'll even add more:
Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be welcomed by a host nation compared to illegal migrants. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are less likely to window shop for an upgrade in nations than illegal migrants(QV the Viet Boat people who chose to come here when the place was one of the poorest in Europe). Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be involved in criminality and even modern terrorism compared to illegal migrants. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be in need of social welfare safety nets over time compared to illegal migrants. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be in the tax net and other civil frameworks than illegal migrants. Benefit.

Set against cheap labour, exoticism of food and customs, few "connections" between nations beyond remittances and vague references to different "values" that seem resistant to any sort of definition. There really doesn't seem to be a lot of arrows in the multiculturalist's quivers, as we've seen throughout this thread and others.